brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Nearly Identical articles
01:55, March 14, 2011 (UTC) * No. The idea is absurd to me. 01:57, March 14, 2011 (UTC) * Face it. We're not Wikipedia. In my opinion, I feel that having a conformity in articles is probably not the best for Brickipedia. Basically, basic structure and info would be fine with me. 02:06, March 14, 2011 (UTC) * Per above. 02:07, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm not saying we should have articles "identical". I completely agree with Fudge and NHL, however, I didn't really make that clear in my opening. Maybe I should have, so I'll make it clear here: I don't want articles to be "identical". 02:09, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :::By the way, I deleted them. If you note LL's comment, it says that it's for "people who don't care about consistency". That's pinning stupid titles on people who don't agree with him by making groups. So it's been deleted because of that, as well as because of the absurdity of it. And I know that you don't want them to be identical-that was what I agreed with. 02:10, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::Yes, I just edit conflicted with you, that's all, I was really talking to Fudge. 02:12, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :::::Ah-best way to indicate that is by doing the :: after his comment. Anyhow, thanks for the notice, I've gotten rid of them. E-mail me if more pop up-I'm not gone, I'm just staying in forums and bureaucracy. 02:14, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Absurdity? No it isn't, it's professional. Did you move them to my user main space? ---- We're in the darkest hour :::::::And what is so wrong about trying to make things consistent anyways? It doesn't make it "boring", it makes it consistently formatted the best as it can be. ---- We're in the darkest hour 03:17, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::BobaFett2, I meant to say that it is for people who do care, must of left out a word bi accident. I'm not a robot, you shouldn't expect so much from me. ---- We're in the darkest hour 03:18, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Well, only robots could put up with reading the exact same things over and over 13000 times. 04:58, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::I agree with NHL. 07:40, March 14, 2011 (UTC) Compare the Dolphin page with the Fish page. One is formatted like a minifigure page, the other is formatted like a part page. My personal project at the moment is to go through all the Animal pages, tidy them up, make them more readable and most importantly, make them all the same format (minifigure style). I think having articles titled "Part 88297" is madness, who in their right mind would want to click on a link for that? Especially if it's in a list of similar links (see the Dog page before I got to it), trying to find what you're looking for is like trying to win the lotto. What I mean is, "consistency" is the middle ground between uniformity and chaos. If this site is more casual than Wikipedia, so be it, but that's no excuse for laziness.--Dunjohn 12:20, March 14, 2011 (UTC) : Hey, I've got nothing wrong with that level of consistency- it's exactly what we have an MoS for. But these projects were trying to tell us what we should be writing word for word in an article. Also, off topic and on a personal note, but I resent anyone here who calls anyone, or the collective community here "lazy" (the word's been used a fair bit lately)- this is a volunteer project. People are allowed to contribute as much or as little as they want to, there are no obligations here. Also, we have over 13 thousand articles. So you may have found an error in a couple of pages- do you really think anyone here has read the latest revision of every single article? Again, sorry, this sounds like it's aimed at you personally, it's not. There's just been a lot of criticism like this going around lately and I'm fed up with it. If you find a mistake, just fix it already. 13:16, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::::@LL: No, you did not leave out a word. The group labels anyone who isn't in it as not caring about quality. That's the inherent message. As such, it doesn't belong here. You over-use the idea of being professional. We are not out to make money-we aren't professionals-so stop acting as if it all is as such. 13:20, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::@ Dunjohn: I think we have had a discussion about that issue, but I don't know in what or if it even resulted in something. I made a suggestion that we could have an animal infobox and create animal pages (for animals consisting of one or more pieces) as well as part pages (for animals consisting of only one piece). But I think the idea never resulted in anything. 15:33, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :::@Dunjohn - Lazy >_> Yes. Okay. Sure thing. --- You're in the Jungle Baby -- Kingcjc 16:28, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::Yes, lazy. I'm not talking about bad writing. I'm talking about somebody not bothering to make a new article fit the template of existing ones because they're not in the mood or just couldn't be arsed to even check.--Dunjohn 17:00, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :::::Yes, I hate it when people can't be arsed and just make it so 99% of articles have the correct templates and categories, yes, why don't they just go through all 13000 articles and check them all. ^_^ --- You're in the Jungle Baby -- Kingcjc 19:30, March 14, 2011 (UTC) * I think that a certain amount of consistency is good, but we don't need to have every article identical to every other one, do we? --Cligra 16:46, March 14, 2011 (UTC) * Per Lego lord, @BobaFett2 does the phrase "try your best" apply to you? --- We'll watch our world rot away... :::Yes it does apply to me. I get that I should "try my best". 21:07, March 14, 2011 (UTC) * This is a volunteer project, run by unpaid community members, we are not supposed to be completely professional, its supposed to be informative, fun and helpful. The MOS we had, did that, not even Wikipedia has that level of consistency, yes it has a lot of guidelines, but if you've ever been involved in Wikipedia, it has hardly any consistency. If this was supposed to be completely professional, we'd all be paid by a company to spend our time editing, and we'd have a billion rules forced down on us from above.. I don't see where anyone could get this idea of wikis having to be professional from? Especially not Customs, which is opinion based artist and creative freedom. ''. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 20:13, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::This is what I've been trying to say in a more brief fashion. Thank you. 21:07, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :::No, the groups are to make things consistent, and ''look professional, not actually professional. And you don't have to make things consistent if you don't want to, only people who want to can. This is not forced, why must you delete it? ---- We're in the darkest hour 21:18, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::You said that the groups are for people who "care about consistency". This means that anyone who is not in the groups "does not care about consistency"-aka isn't a good editor. 21:19, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :::::That doesn't mean that you or anyone isn't a good editor, when did I say that? ---- We're in the darkest hour 21:22, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::::You said that the group is "for people who care about consistency". The second phrase is in quotes because I disagree with it. And the third thing is the meaning behind what you said. 21:23, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I didn't mean to aim it that way at all. ---- We're in the darkest hour 21:24, March 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::From how it was worded, the group seemed to have been set up to limit discussion to only those who support it --- You're in the Jungle Baby -- Kingcjc 21:22, March 14, 2011 (UTC) :::::Sorry, that isn't what I intended. ---- We're in the darkest hour ::::::The problem that I have with the consistency group is that not everybody wants all articles to look "congruent". I'm not saying that since I don't want it to be like that, it shouldn't. I started this forum so that the community could decide whether they wanted the consistency project or not. 01:09, March 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I don't really see what is wrong with things looking consistent. Please tell why you think it would be wrong. ---- We're in the darkest hour 02:36, March 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::How many more reasons do you want? seriously. Vote set up just to get this over with already. 03:25, March 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::"Well, only robots could put up with reading the exact same things over and over 13000 times", is that really true? ---- We're in the darkest hour 18:59, March 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::Can this be moved to my user name space? ---- reply back Voting Ban the projects # 03:25, March 15, 2011 (UTC) # 03:26, March 15, 2011 (UTC) # 03:50, March 15, 2011 (UTC) #--[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 17:33, March 15, 2011 (UTC) #--- When we were kids when we were young, things seemed so perfect, you know? -- Kingcjc 17:57, March 15, 2011 (UTC) # 18:00, March 15, 2011 (UTC) # 18:02, March 15, 2011 (UTC) #''Berrybrick'' talk ''-- "Character Will Be Tested. . . ."'' 18:59, March 15, 2011 # --Cligra 00:37, March 24, 2011 (UTC) (UTC) Don't ban the projects # Please tell me a reason as to why you want to ban the project. ---- We're in the darkest hour ::Kingcjc, I thought you said that it is fine if I make articles consistent. No? ---- We're in the darkest hour :::We gave you many reasons above. Read it. 18:56, March 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::I did read it. You aren't trying to understand my perspective on things, you aren't letting me say anymore. ---- We're in the darkest hour ::::::Actually, I am trying to understand it. I disagree with it-that doesn't mean I'm not understanding it. You could say more but you would just be saying the same thing you've been saying for a long time...by the way, you're comment implies that anyone who disagrees is wrong because everyone who disagreed "isn't trying to understand it"-meaning that if they did, they would agree, which indicates that you are right. Which is not necessarily true. 19:03, March 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I simply want you to provide some backup to your propsals next time, you know, like mine. ---- We're in the darkest hour ::::::::I see that it can be banned, please put it under my user name space. ---- We're in the darkest hour :::Yes, but your and mine definitions of consistent are completely different--- When we were kids when we were young, things seemed so perfect, you know? -- Kingcjc 19:08, March 15, 2011 (UTC) :::I'm not following, explain yourself. ---- We're in the darkest hour ::::If you are going to use that tone, I'll pass --- When we were kids when we were young, things seemed so perfect, you know? -- Kingcjc 19:14, March 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::: Sorry if it sounds rude, I wasn't intending it to be. ---- We're in the darkest hour :::::::It's just as absurd whether it's in your userspace or not, so no. 02:02, March 19, 2011 (UTC) }}